Re-arming the Leander frigates

[uk 75]

In the 1970s 26 Type 12 Leander frigates had become the main General Purpose frigate of the Royal Navy.
The first system chosen for the early Leanders was the ASW Ikara. The demands of a possible nuclear Ikara and RN concerns about safety meant than an elaborate housing for the system replaced the forward 4.5" gun.
The UK selected the French MM38 in 1970 as its medium range SSM (Otomat was considered for longer range work and Harpoon eventually bought).
Both on the last 4 Countys and on its Leanders the RN opted for a bulky 4 launcher mounting that required the removal of the 4.5" gun. Ironcally the lighter T21 frigates were able to keep their gun as Exocet used the space originally allocated to chaff launchers.
The T22 Batch1 and 2 also had to sacrifice a gun for Exocet.
Finally, the Seawolf missile and its radars proved much bigger than the Seacat so again the 4.5" gun was sacrificed.
The last Leanders ended up retaining their 4.5" gun as the costly Seawolf conversion was canceled.
Of the three systems fitted in the 1970s only Seawolf was fired in anger.
I have written before that RN Ikara seemed an expensive solution to killing Soviet subs in a navy which had its own nuclear submarines and helicopters plus RAF Nimrods. Quite why New Xealand bought one of the Ex RN Ikara Leanders rather than the gun armed one?
Exocet on big ships lacked the range to deal with Soviet ships before they used their weapons. Harpoon was eventually bought but only after a lot of expensive MM38 mountings on RN ships.
The missile that could have been used on Leanders was the Seacat2. This offered similar performance to NATO Sea Sparrow on existing Seacat launchers.
Seawolf to be effective needed at least twelve ready to fire rounds as used on the T22 and only came into its own with VLS on the T23.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've heard that the Ikara systems had already been bought and paid for as long-lead items for the CVA.01 class aircraft carriers and Type 82 destroyers. Is that true?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The more extensive the modernisation, the more expensive the modernisation and the smaller the difference between the cost of the modernisation & the cost of a new ship with the same capability, which will be a more modern design, have a hull & machinery that will take longer to wear out, may be cheaper to run & may require a smaller crew so more ships can be kept in commission with the same number of (as this was the 1970s) men.

I think the 20 Leander modernisations weren't worth the cost and another 20 Type 22s & Type 42s should have been built. Plus another 8 Type 42s should have been built in place of the 8 Type 21s.

Yes they would have cost more in absolute terms, but I think economies of scale would have come into play and reduced the difference between the cost of refitting the Leanders & the cost of building new ships.

• E.g. building another 20 sets of Olympus-Tyne COGOG machinery aught to reduce the production cost and maintenance costs.
• I also want all ALT-Type 22s to be built with a 4.5" Mk 8 gun which would increase the number built in this period for the RN from 27 (8 Type 21, 4 Type 22, 14 Type 42 and one Type 82) to 57 (56 ALT-Type 22 & ALT-Type 42 and one Type 82). That aught to reduce the production costs of the guns & mountings, fire control systems and ammunition. This might have the bonus of some more export sales.
• If the 20 extra ships are built in the same yards as the 36 "Real World" ships of Types 21, 22 & 42 economies of scale may reduce the cost of building the hulls & fitting them out.
• Although, it may be necessary for political & economic reasons to have the 20 extra new ships built by the Royal Dockyards that carried out the 20 Leander refits. This applies to Devonport in particular because 16½ out of 20 were carried out there with only 2½ at Chatham and one at Portsmouth. It may be necessary to have 16 or 17 of the 20 extra ships built there to support the local economy and to buy votes in marginal Parliamentary constituencies even if they'd be cheaper if built on a production line at Yarrow. On the other hand 16 or 17 hulls is more than the 15 that Yarrow built (5 Type 21 and 10 Type 22) so the 16 or 17 ships built at Devonport may be among the cheapest.
• Plus the extra cost of building 20 new ships instead of refitting 20 existing ships may be offset by the lower running costs of the 20 new ships vis-à-vis the 20 refitted ships.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth I've been watching a BBCTV series from the 1970 called "Warship" on Youtube. It's about a fictional Leander class frigate called HMS Hero and I recommend it because I think it's superb.

I'm up to the first episodes of Series 3 which were first broadcast in January 1976. Commander Mark Nialls, OBE (Donald Burton) who was her captain in Series 1 & 2 (broadcast in 1973 & 1974) has been replaced by Commander Alan Douglas Glenn, AFC (Bryan Marshall) a former Phantom pilot in the FAA.

The recurring cast includes Don Henderson as Master-at-Arms Frank Heron (Series 1–3) & James Cosmo as Leading Regulator Pat Fuller, who are great individually and as a double act so I'll be sorry to see Henderson go later in Series 3.

There are many familiar faces amongst the guest cast. Notably a 27-year-old Michael Cochrane as Lieutenant Palfrey, RM in the first two episodes of Series 2 which were broadcast in October 1974 who I guess is best known to members of this board as Sir Henry Simmerson in "Sharpe", although I think he deserves an honourable mention for playing Lieutenant Charles Gaylion, a Royal Flying Corps pilot in the BBCTV series "Wings" (1977–78) which I think was very good too.

According to the series' Wikipedia entry.

Seven Leander-class frigates played the role of HMS Hero and for continuity, all were repainted with the pennant number F42 of HMS Phoebe, the main warship used for filming. The others were HMS Danae, HMS Dido, HMS Diomede, HMS Hermione, HMS Juno and HMS Jupiter.

They were all pre-modernisation Leanders and although they may be less capable warships in that form they look much better (with the twin 4.5in Mk 6 turret forward and Type 965 AKE-1 radar) than they did in any of their modernised forms. The best looking of a bad bunch were the Exocets (because they kept the Type 965) and the Ikaras were the worst looking.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@uk 75 you beat me to it with this post in the thread "Fictional Warships in Movies & TV".

Warship (1973 TV series) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Back in the 70s BBC made a series about a Leander class frigate called HMS Hero. HMS Phoebe (F42) played the main part, but according to Wik six other RN Leanders and RAN Derwent also played her.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As far as I can remember from reading Norman Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates book.

• All 26 Leanders were fitted for (but not with) a second Sea Cat system.
• The Leander and County classes were fitted for (but not with) six fixed tubes for 21in anti-submarine torpedoes.
• Leander Batches 2 & 3 were fitted for (but not with) the small-ship version of the Action Data Automation (ADA) which was fitted to Eagle as part of her 1959-64 rebuild and was related to the Action Data Automation Weapons System Mk 1 (ADAWS.1) that was fitted to the County class Batch 2 destroyers. As ADA had three Ferranti Poseidon computers, and ADAWS.1 had two the small-ship version may have had one Poseidon computer.

Although I think the money should have been spent on new ships this is my 1970s Leander modernisation:

• Fit the second Sea Cat system to all 26 ships.
• Fit six torpedo tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple trainable mountings to all 26 ships.
• Fit ADAWS or CAAIS (both using Ferranti FM1600 computers) to all 26 ships.
• Extend the hangar and flight deck so Lynx can be operated, which will probably require the removal of the Limbo from all 26 ships and the Type 199 VDS from the ships that were fitted with it.
• Keep the 4.5" Mk 6 gun turret.
• The Batch 3 ships may have had their Type 965 AKE-1 radar replaced by the Type 1022 and Type 184 sonar replaced by the Type 2016. That's partly on account of the ships having the extra beam (so more internal space and topweight) that may be required for the new systems. It's also because Types 1022 & Type 2016 may not be available when the Batch 1 & 2 ships were modernised.

 

[Hood]

That's a pretty nifty refit and I like it a lot.

I have nothing against the Ikara-conversions, not a bad idea and all and Ikara was a useful (if bulky) weapon. Would like to see those Batch 2 ships perhaps have Ikara and Type 199 and maybe lose their helicopter once Wasp phases out but have Batch 3 with Lynx and Type 2016 with no VDS. I'm not adverse to losing the 4.5in guns for a Sea Wolf as Sea Cat is pretty pants as a credible defence - why go to the expense of CAAIS and Type 1022 if you can't hit anything?

I never got the idea of the few Exocet-Sea Cat conversions, seemed pointless to add a third useless launcher unless the idea was a vain hope to volley fire and hope something hit?

I'm not worried about Exocet being short-ranged, nobody else in the West was much better off at the time and the Soviets win hands down with fighter-sized monster missiles anyway. You picks what you have access to and got with it. The RN made the right choice with Harpoon eventually.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I have nothing against the Ikara-conversions, not a bad idea and all and Ikara was a useful (if bulky) weapon. Would like to see those Batch 2 ships perhaps have Ikara and Type 199 and maybe lose their helicopter once Wasp phases out but have Batch 3 with Lynx and Type 2016 with no VDS.

Is the advantage of Ikara that it can be fired when the sea is too rough for helicopters to fly? If so that would be useful in the GIUK Gap.

I'm not adverse to losing the 4.5in guns for a Sea Wolf as Sea Cat is pretty pants as a credible defence - why go to the expense of CAAIS and Type 1022 if you can't hit anything?

As I understand it (as usual from Norman Friedman) the in the 1960s RN was so impressed with the performance of ADA and ADAWS.1 that it wanted to fit it to all its surface warships, but the cost was prohibitive so that's the main reason why I want all 26 Leanders to have the FM1600 version of ADAWS or CAAIS fitted in the 1970s. I also recall reading that the 2 Leanders that were built for the RNZN weren't allowed to serve in the Persian Gulf because they didn't have ADAWS or an equivalent system and both of them had the standard pre-modernisation Leander armament.

I just threw Type 1022 and the Type 2016 sonar in for good measure as they'd be available by the time. However (once again from Friedman) the RN had Leander fitted with the Type 965 because it wanted to equip the Fleet with as many as possible of the best air surveillance radar that was available. The Leanders didn't have the facilities to fully exploit what the Type 965 "saw" so my guess (because I can't remember) is that the information would be passed onto ships that could (like the Strike Carriers, Counties, AD Battles or Type 61s) via their DPT data links. Therefore, I think that logic from the 1960s would still be valid around 1980 so the RN would want to equip the Fleet with as many of the best air surveillance radar available (by now the Type 1022) as possible.

I never got the idea of the few Exocet-Sea Cat conversions, seemed pointless to add a third useless launcher unless the idea was a vain hope to volley fire and hope something hit?

This is a semi-rhetorical question. If Sea Cat was a waste of space why did the RN fit so many ships with it? E.g. Eagle had 6, Fearless & Intrepid had 4 each, Hermes had 2, Ark Royal was fitted for (but not with) 4 and most destroyers & frigates of the 1960s had one or 2. (It took the 21" tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes off Types 12, 14 & 15 and abandoned plans to fit them to the Counties & Leanders because they torpedoes weren't good enough.) And why did it sell so well on the export market?

I'm not worried about Exocet being short-ranged, nobody else in the West was much better off at the time and the Soviets win hands down with fighter-sized monster missiles anyway. You picks what you have access to and got with it. The RN made the right choice with Harpoon eventually.

How did the Exocet and the 4.5in gun compare in terms of range? I like the Mk 6 because of its versatility and it makes the ships look "cool" for want of a better word, which is useful for "presence" and naval diplomacy. (If those terms are familiar that's because I've been watching a lot of Dr Clarke's videos.)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RNLN modernised its 6 Van Spejik class 1977-81. They were standard-beam Leanders built in the Netherlands with Dutch equipment completed 1966-67. The refit was to this standard and is an interesting comparison to the RN "Exocet" Leander refits which were done at about the same time.

• One single OTO-Melara 76mm gun mounting replaced the twin 4.5in Mk 6 gun mounting.
• Two quadruple Harpoon SSMs.
• Two Sea Cat systems.
• Six torpedo tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple & trainable Mk 32 mountings.
• A hangar & flight deck for one Lynx helicopter.
• One LW-08 long-range 3-D air-search radar.
  • This was also fitted to the Kortanaer class frigates which were sort-of the Dutch equivalent to Type 22.
  • This radar was also the basis of the British Type 1022 radar.
• SEWACO the Dutch equivalent to ADAWS/CAAIS and NTDS.
• According to Bernard Ireland in "Navies of the West" the C3 equipment was also completely up-dated and all modifications were carried out with an eye to reducing complement. Thus (according to him) where the RN Exocet conversions need 223 men, the Van Spejiks required 185 - a saving of 17%.

So it had a gun, twice as many SSMs and a much better long-range air-search radar than the "Exocet" Leander. It only had 2 Sea Cats but they had a Dutch fire control system (that might have been more accurate). Finally, it required a smaller crew to operate the heavier armament and better sensor fit. So it beats the "Exocet" Leander at "Warship Top Trumps". Did the "Exocet" Leander have any hidden advantages?

Edit:

@Hood, although I didn't know it when I wrote Post 6, the RNLN fitting their equivalent of Type 1022 to their Leander class frigates is another reason why I think the RN should fit as many Leanders as possible with the Type 1022 radar. If it was good enough for the RNLN it's good enough for the RN.

As far as I can remember the RNLN's plan at the time was to have three task groups assigned to the EASTLANT sub-command of ACLANT. Each task group would have one AAW ship, 6 ASW frigates and an AOR. The AAW ships were to be the 2 Tromps & one Kortanear armed with Standard MR. The ASW frigates were to be 12 Kortaners & 6 Van Spejiks. Therefore, they'd be operating alongside the RN and facing the same threats. My guess is that they fitted the LW 08 radar to the Kortanaers & Van Spejiks because they wanted to give the AAW ships (and any fighters that were within range) the earliest possible warning of incoming air attacks.

Correction 24.04.04.

It was a LW-03 radar not a LW-08 radar.

 

[uk 75]

The 8 T21s with both Exocet and a 4.5" gun were pretty good value even if they proved to be fragile. In a North Atlantic War most escorts were going to have a short life anyway.
Hood makes good points. Experts here seem to like UK Ikara as an effective all weather ASW and Exocet was probably the best missile available in 1970 (Otomat was later and more expensive). The mountings though show the RN at its worst. Why does the USN always manage to get decent launch systems (ASROC, Tartar, Harpoon cannisters, Tomahawk boxes).
Seacat has always baffled me since I saw the mock ups of the Seacat 2 missile which could use the same launchers. The original missile was a modified anti tank missile design (Malkara or Orange William?). It seemed a no brainer to buy the new system.
Seawolf got in the way of this as it seemed initially possible to replace Seacat with it.
Oh and yet again another ghastly British design for a launch system on Seawolf. Why six rather than 4 or 2 and why the clumsy box holder.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I know that a submarine-launched version of Martel was cancelled under the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75. Were there any plans for a surface ship version?

 

[Hood]

Yes there was a Ship-Martel proposal linked to USGW circa 1969-70 - basically a Martel with a radar-homer and a solid rocket booster for launch (smaller than the USGW booster).
It didn't got very far but led to the air-launched Active Radar Martel (with radar and a turbojet sustainer) which eventually became P3T Sea Eagle.

Given the lack of the turbojet of the later Sea Eagle, I'm guessing performance would have more or less been in the same ballpark as Exocet.

 

[pathology_doc]

The first system chosen for the early Leanders was the ASW Ikara. The demands of a possible nuclear Ikara and RN concerns about safety meant than an elaborate housing for the system replaced the forward 4.5" gun.

As opposed to the neat stern launcher on the Australian Rivers and the Branik system, which enabled them to keep their main turrets. Granted, the River class probably weren't intended to carry Nuclear Ikara under any circumstances.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The missile that could have been used on Leanders was the Seacat 2. This offered similar performance to NATO Sea Sparrow on existing Seacat launchers.

Seacat has always baffled me since I saw the mock ups of the Seacat 2 missile which could use the same launchers. The original missile was a modified anti tank missile design (Malkara or Orange William?). It seemed a no brainer to buy the new system.

Would this have been GWS.23? There were GWS.20, 21, 22 & 24 versions of Sea Cat, but as far as I know no GWS.23.

 

[GK Dundas]

The first system chosen for the early Leanders was the ASW Ikara. The demands of a possible nuclear Ikara and RN concerns about safety meant than an elaborate housing for the system replaced the forward 4.5" gun.

As opposed to the neat stern launcher on the Australian Rivers and the Branik system, which enabled them to keep their main turrets. Granted, the River class probably weren't intended to carry Nuclear Ikara under any circumstances.

Sometime back I came to the conclusion that somebody in MOD viewed the purchase of any forgiven weapons system as a direct threat to their cushy job and decided to modify the IKARA all out recognition. And thus make any future possible purchase of such offshore systems unpalatable.
I give you the IKARA Leander.

 

[Hood]

The RN just thought the Australian magazine wasn't safe, they didn't like the horizontal storage layout for that reason (a rocket misfire could set off a chain reaction) and wanted the nuclear warheads safely below the waterline.
In the absence of RAN ships blowing up every 5 minutes we can safely assume this was overly cautious but the RN had enough magazine explosions in its history to make it hyper sensitive - which is probably why they mucked up Sea Slug stowage too.

 

[uk 75]

The Exocet fit on RN ships seems to have been deliberately designed to trade off with the gun mount.
Other countries had simpler mountings which in some cases allowed them to use MM40 later.
I read somewhere (Friedman?) that where guns were removed Seacat was supposed to also have a surface to surface role. Could Seacat have done this?

 

[uk 75]

The 26 Leanders took a decade to enter service.
It is fun to look at Jane's Fighting ships for 1961 and 1971 (I happen to have those copies).
In 1961 missile equipped ships are few and far between except in the US Navy.
By 1971 the Soviet Navy has led the way in surface to surface missiles while US Terrier and Tartar systems have equipped a number of allied warships. ASROC has also found export customers except for Australia with Ikara.
At first sight the Leanders were ideal ships to convert. The forward 4.5" gun was readily removable leaving plenty of space. The hangar roof had space for a new Point Defence system.
As mentioned above both the Dutch and Australian navies seemed to get this right.
If Phalanx CIWS had been available earlier it might have replaced the Seacat launchers.
The Falklands was not a good war for the Leander conversions. The Ikara ships were irrelevant. The Exocet conversions had no surface targets to deal with and indequate Seacats for air defence. Too few Seawolf conversions had been built in time but apart from goalkeeping with a T42 did not offer much.
But as I have said repeatedly on this site, the Falklands was a distraction, a one off.
The eight Ikara ships were a valuable component of the RN ASW force designed to fight Soviet subs.
The Exocet and Seawolf ships would have been useful parts of a task group bringing forces to Norway or getting routes cleared for shipping from US and Canada.
But in an ideal world the Type 22 would have been built in its Batch 3 incarnation from the off and entered service before 1980.

 

[GK Dundas]

Why the clumsy box holder.

Because it's BRITISH ! * Rule Britannia playing loudly , badly and decidedly off key in the back ground.*

 

[BlackBat242]

The first system chosen for the early Leanders was the ASW Ikara. The demands of a possible nuclear Ikara and RN concerns about safety meant than an elaborate housing for the system replaced the forward 4.5" gun.

As opposed to the neat stern launcher on the Australian Rivers and the Branik system, which enabled them to keep their main turrets. Granted, the River class probably weren't intended to carry Nuclear Ikara under any circumstances.

Sometime back I came to the conclusion that somebody in MOD viewed the purchase of any forgiven weapons system as a direct threat to their cushy job and decided to modify the IKARA all out recognition. And thus make any future possible purchase of such offshore systems unpalatable.
I give you the IKARA Leander.

The RN just thought the Australian magazine wasn't safe, they didn't like the horizontal storage layout for that reason (a rocket misfire could set off a chain reaction) and wanted the nuclear warheads safely below the waterline.
In the absence of RAN ships blowing up every 5 minutes we can safely assume this was overly cautious but the RN had enough magazine explosions in its history to make it hyper sensitive - which is probably why they mucked up Sea Slug stowage too.

There was also the issue of the RN's ships operating in winter conditions in the North Atlantic etc... even on the stern, it was considered that icing would build up on the launcher, making the system unusable without the weather cover of the zareba.

The excessive complication of making the launcher a precision-training item (to launch a missile that was then steered after launch... ????????????), now that should have been thrown out the moment it was proposed!

This description was posted on the now-disappeared Middle-Watch website:

As implemented in the RAN the Ikara was a replacement for the Helicopter on their Type 12 ships. Built in Australia these were broadly equivalent to the RN type 12's, but were classed as Escort Destroyers (DDE), I will cover them in more detail later. The Ikara launcher replaced the Limbo mounts on the early models but on the Leander equivalents was mounted alongside them.

The launcher was a simple affair with preset firing positions. The missile was a cruise type and attained a set altitude and was then steered over to a sonar contact where it dropped a Mk 44 or Mk 46 torpedo and then dived into the sea clear of the sonar range of the torpedo.

Originally purchased by the RN for the Bristol Class destroyer which as a dedicated carrier escort would not need to operate a helicopter, the system was altered to "Meet the differing requirements of RN operations." These differing requirements meant the launcher became a horrendously complex device with fantastically noisy hydraulic pumps able to train it with the accuracy of a large astronomical telescope. Submariners have told me the noise of the Ikara GHU (General Hydraulic Unit) deafened them without the need for hydrophones at ten miles, the operating range of the system. The command transmitter was also beefed up to such an extent it had to sit in a bath of chilled water to keep from melting down, keeping the water pure so that it did not short the transmitter like a toaster in a bath would become the abiding concern of Ikara Tracking and Guidance Engineers for years.

There is some argument for the high power transmitter as it could punch through jamming signals, but the need for accuracy of the launcher when the missile would slew after take off anyway and was designed to be steered to target has never been explained to me. The complexity of the launcher would detract significantly to the combat readiness of the system.

 

[pathology_doc]

There was also the issue of the RN's ships operating in winter conditions in the North Atlantic etc... even on the stern, it was considered that icing would build up on the launcher, making the system unusable without the weather cover of the zareba.

Aha!

That probably also explains the decision of the New Zealanders to go with an Ikara Leander instead of a River; NZ's intended operating areas were probably sufficiently further south that cold might be an issue.

 

[Kiltonge]

I read somewhere (Friedman?) that where guns were removed Seacat was supposed to also have a surface to surface role. Could Seacat have done this?

Yes it was a secondary capability for Seacat.

This ability was hindered with the later anti-sea-skimmer retrofit that introduced an altimeter that held the missile at 20ft above sea-level. Useful against missiles but not against small vessels.

 

[Pioneer]

Seacat has always baffled me since I saw the mock ups of the Seacat 2 missile which could use the same launchers. The original missile was a modified anti tank missile design (Malkara or Orange William?). It seemed a no brainer to buy the new system.

uk 75, I would kill for picture of the Seacat 2, let alone seeing the mockups!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[uk 75]

Seacat has always baffled me since I saw the mock ups of the Seacat 2 missile which could use the same launchers. The original missile was a modified anti tank missile design (Malkara or Orange William?). It seemed a no brainer to buy the new system.

uk 75, I would kill for picture of the Seacat 2, let alone seeing the mockups!!

Regards
Pioneer

No need. just look through this thread. Pic is at the end.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-happened-to-seacat-2.1984/#post-16877

 

[Pioneer]

Seacat has always baffled me since I saw the mock ups of the Seacat 2 missile which could use the same launchers. The original missile was a modified anti tank missile design (Malkara or Orange William?). It seemed a no brainer to buy the new system.

uk 75, I would kill for picture of the Seacat 2, let alone seeing the mockups!!

Regards
Pioneer

No need. just look through this thread. Pic is at the end.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-happened-to-seacat-2.1984/#post-16877

Yes, thanks heaps uk 75!!

Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 9 about how the RNLN modernised its 6 Van Spejik class 1977-81.

I forgot that 30 Leanders were built in British yards: 26 for the RN; 2 for the RNZN; and 2 for the Chilean Navy.

The Chilean ships were broad-beam Leanders completed 1973-74. Their armament (according to my copy of Jane's 1986-87) was:

• 2 x 4.5in in one twin Mk 6 turret with a MRS.3 for fire control.
• 2 x 20mm in single mountings.
• 1 x GWS.22 Sea Cat with quadruple launcher and 16 missiles, which I presume includes the missiles in the launcher.
• 4 x MM.38 Exocet SSMs on the stern where the Type 199 VDS would have been.
• 6 x torpedo tubes for 12.75in anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple Mk 32 mountings.
• No Limbo mortar.
• 1 x Alouette III helicopter.

In common with the British broad-beam Leanders they had a Type 965 AKE-1 radar and instead of the Type 184 sonar a Type 177.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There was also the issue of the RN's ships operating in winter conditions in the North Atlantic etc... even on the stern, it was considered that icing would build up on the launcher, making the system unusable without the weather cover of the zareba.

Aha!

That probably also explains the decision of the New Zealanders to go with an Ikara Leander instead of a River; NZ's intended operating areas were probably sufficiently further south that cold might be an issue.

Possibly, I simply don't know.

However, the other Leander NZ bought "second-hand" from the RN was Bacchante (one of the unconverted Batch 3s) which still had a twin 4.5" gun turret. The two "brand new" Leanders that NZ bought were Waikato (completed 1966) and Canterbury (completed 1971). They were Batch 2 and 3 ships respectively that had twin 4.5" gun turrets too.

It may have been that none of the RAN's River class were for sale when the RNZN was looking for replacements for Otago & Taranaki and RN Leanders were.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes there was a Ship-Martel proposal linked to USGW circa 1969-70 - basically a Martel with a radar-homer and a solid rocket booster for launch (smaller than the USGW booster). It didn't get very far but led to the air-launched Active Radar Martel (with radar and a turbojet sustainer) which eventually became P3T Sea Eagle.

Given the lack of the turbojet of the later Sea Eagle, I'm guessing performance would have more or less been in the same ballpark as Exocet.

Did the technology of the day allow Active Radar Martel (with radar and a turbojet sustainer) to be put into service when Exocet entered service with the RN? That is, subject to someone thinking of it early enough for the R&D to be done and to the MOD's accountants being able to find the money to pay for the R&D and any extra production cost vis-à-vis Exocet.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 6.

Although I think the money should have been spent on new ships this is my 1970s Leander modernisation:

• Fit the second Sea Cat system to all 26 ships.
• Fit six torpedo tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple trainable mountings to all 26 ships.
• Fit ADAWS or CAAIS (both using Ferranti FM1600 computers) to all 26 ships.
• Extend the hangar and flight deck so Lynx can be operated, which will probably require the removal of the Limbo from all 26 ships and the Type 199 VDS from the ships that were fitted with it.
• Keep the 4.5" Mk 6 gun turret.
• The Batch 3 ships may have had their Type 965 AKE-1 radar replaced by the Type 1022 and Type 184 sonar replaced by the Type 2016. That's partly on account of the ships having the extra beam (so more internal space and topweight) that may be required for the new systems. It's also because Types 1022 & Type 2016 may not be available when the Batch 1 & 2 ships were modernised.

This is my updated version of the above.

• Remove the Limbo mortar and (from those ships that had it) the Type 199 VDS.
• Keep the 4.5" Mk 6 gun turret.
• If it's developed in this "version of history" upgrade the existing Sea Cat system to Sea Cat 2.
  • If space and top-weight permit fit a second Sea Cat 2.
  • If Sea Cat 2 isn't developed in "version of history" install the second "normal" Sea Cat that the Leanders were fitted for, but not with in the "Real World".
• Fit six torpedo tubes for lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes in two triple trainable mountings. (Mk 32, STWS.1 or STWS.2.)
• Mount 4 MM.38 Exocet ship-to-surface missiles on the stern.
  • However, the 10 broad-beam ships may be the only ships of the class that can do this.
  • If the SSM version of Martel mentioned in Post 12 by @Hood is developed and ready for service in time, the ships have four of those mounted on the stern, instead of the Exocets.
• Extend the hangar and flight deck so a Lynx helicopter can be operated.
• Fit ADAWS or CAAIS (both using Ferranti FM1600 computers).
• Replace the Type 965 AKE-1 with a British equivalent to the American SPS-48. (See below.)
  • Failing that all ships that complete their refits from 1980s onwards receive a Type 1022 in lieu of the Type 965.
  • Which are Argonaut, Danae, Penelope & Juno which had Exocet refits in the "Real World" (except that Juno's was cancelled) and the 10 broad beam ships (& only half of them were modernised).
  • However, the broad-beam ships may be the only ships able to take it if it's heavier than the Type 965.
• The Type 2016 sonar is fitted when it becomes available.
  • In the "Real World" the first ship completed with it was Broadsword which was laid down 07.02.75 and completed on 03.05.79.
  • That suggests that as many as 17 Leander class could have had it. That's because one Ikara, 5 Exocet and all 5 Sea Wolf modernisations began after that date. That's a total of 11 which with the cancelled Exocet refit for Juno and the 5 cancelled Sea Wolf modernisations makes a total of 17.
  • However, the 10 broad-beam ships may be the only Leanders with the space for it. That might be why none of the Ikara and Exocet ships received it in the "Real World" in spite of it being available before some of those ships began their Ikara and Exocet refits.

The British SPS-48 equivalent was inspired by this part of Post 63 in the thread "Rearming the County class missile ships".

As to search radars (I think you asked earlier if any work was done), yes there was research work on new surveillance radars in the late 1960s and some prototyping done by ASWE (I think some have been mentioned on this forum before). But a lot of the work was theoretical stuff (even some novel 360 degree circular arrays) and nothing came of it. I guess Type 988 was syphoning off a lot of money, effort and willpower. It's a shame because I think an SPS-48 type set could have entered service in the 1970s otherwise (you only have to look at Marconi's land-based radars to see what was possible).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some of the information for Post 29 came from my copy of Jane's 1986-87.

According to that book, these are the complements of the different variants of the Leander class.

• 247-250 Australian River class (Page 24).
• 263 Chilean Leanders (Page 93).
• 180 Duch Van Spejik class (Page 370).
• 243 Waikato (Page 377) this was a Batch 2 ship built for the RNZN.
• 245 Canterbury (Page 377) this was a Batch 3 ships built for the RNZN.
• 257 Southland (Page 377) this was the former Dido, an Ikara Leander transferred to NZ in 1983.
• 260 Wellington (Page 377) this was the former Bacchante, an unmodernised Batch 3 transferred to NZ in 1982.
• 257 Ikara Leander (Page 652).
• 248 Exocet Leander (Page 652).
• 260 Sea Wolf Leander (Page 652). The book calls them broad-beam conversions.
• 235 Broad-beam Leander (Page 652). The book calls them broad-beam group.

And for completeness these are the complements of the other Destroyers & Frigates in RN service at the time.

• 235 Type 12 Rothesay (Page 653).
• 244 Type 12 Plymouth (also Page 653, she & Rothesay were the only Rothesay class still in service with the RN).
• 175 Type 21 (Page 651).
• 224 Type 22 Batch 1 (Page 650).
• 273 Type 22 Batches 2 and 3 (Page 650).
• 253 Type 42 Batches 1 & 2 (Page 648).
• 301 Type 42 Batch 3 (Page 648).
• 250 Type 81 none were left in RN service, but 3 were in Indonesian service (Page 255).
• 397 Type 82 (Page 647).
• 472 County class Batch 2 (Page 647).

If the above is accurate a Type 22 Batch 1 had a smaller crew (36 or 14% less) than a Sea Wolf Leander, but carried a second Sea Wolf and has facilities for a second Lynx helicopter. As far as I know the Type 22s only carried one Lynx in peacetime.

Edit 10.04.23

The complements of the NZ Leanders were added and I think the complements for the British Batch 3 Lenders have been transposed. That is the crew of the modernised version was 235 and the unmodernised version was 260 rather than the other way around.

• The former Bacchante had a crew of 260.
• My copy of Jane's 1969-70 says the Leanders had a crew of 263.
• In HMS Hero, the fictional unmodernised Leander class frigate in the 1970s BBCTV series "Warship" had a crew of 260.

That makes the difference in crew between a Sea Wolf Leander and a Type 22 Batch 1 about the same. I.e. 235 v 224. My guess is that the reason for the difference is that the Type 22's gas turbine machinery needed a smaller crew than the Leander's steam turbine machinery. The weapons, radars, sonars and other electronics were nearly the same. As already noted the main difference was that the Type 22 had two Sea Wolf Systems instead of one.

With hindsight, I think another 5 Type 22 Batch 1 should have been built instead of the 5 Sea Wolf Leander modernisations and John Knott's decision to cancel the other 5 as part of the 1981 Defence Review was one of his few correct decisions. I know that would have cost more money & money was tight, but I still think it would have been worth the extra cost, even if that meant a smaller number of ships could be built, e.g. 4 new ships instead of 5 conversions.

 

[BlackBat242]

There was also the issue of the RN's ships operating in winter conditions in the North Atlantic etc... even on the stern, it was considered that icing would build up on the launcher, making the system unusable without the weather cover of the zareba.

Aha!

That probably also explains the decision of the New Zealanders to go with an Ikara Leander instead of a River; NZ's intended operating areas were probably sufficiently further south that cold might be an issue.

Possibly, I simply don't know.

However, the other Leander NZ bought "second-hand" from the RN was Bacchante (one of the unconverted Batch 3s) which still had a twin 4.5" gun turret. The two "brand new" Leanders that NZ bought were Waikato (completed 1966) and Canterbury (completed 1971). They were Batch 2 and 3 ships respectively that had twin 4.5" gun turrets too.

It may have been that none of the RAN's River class were for sale when the RNZN was looking for replacements for Otago & Taranaki and RN Leanders were.

HMS Dido (renamed HMNZS Southland) was sold to New Zealand in 1981, and commissioned into the RNZN in July 1983.

The first of the RAN River class frigates to be decommissioned was HMAS Yarra, decommissioned in November 1985.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There was also the issue of the RN's ships operating in winter conditions in the North Atlantic etc... even on the stern, it was considered that icing would build up on the launcher, making the system unusable without the weather cover of the zareba.

Aha!

That probably also explains the decision of the New Zealanders to go with an Ikara Leander instead of a River; NZ's intended operating areas were probably sufficiently further south that cold might be an issue.

Possibly, I simply don't know.

However, the other Leander NZ bought "second-hand" from the RN was Bacchante (one of the unconverted Batch 3s) which still had a twin 4.5" gun turret. The two "brand new" Leanders that NZ bought were Waikato (completed 1966) and Canterbury (completed 1971). They were Batch 2 and 3 ships respectively that had twin 4.5" gun turrets too.

It may have been that none of the RAN's River class were for sale when the RNZN was looking for replacements for Otago & Taranaki and RN Leanders were.

HMS Dido (renamed HMNZS Southland) was sold to New Zealand in 1981, and commissioned into the RNZN in July 1983.

The first of the RAN River class frigates to be decommissioned was HMAS Yarra, decommissioned in November 1985.

I'm having one of my "blond moments". Are you supporting me or saying I'm wrong and that NZ could have bought a River instead of Dido if they had wanted to?

For what it's worth the entry on the RNZN in my copy of Jane's 1986-87 doesn't say when the ships were sold, but it does say.

• Canterbury (ex-Bacchante) was transferred on 01.10.82, commissioned into the RNZN on 04.10.82, sailed for NZ on 11.10.82 and arrived on 01.12.82.
• Southland (ex-Dido) was transferred on 18.07.83. She then had a refit at Vosper Thornycroft, commissioned on 21.12.83 and sailed for NZ on completion.

My guess is that they bought ex-British Leanders instead of ex-Australian Rivers because the British ships had more equipment that was compatible with the 2 Leanders the RNZN already had. According to Jane's 1986-87 the 5 Rivers in service at that time had Dutch LW-02 air surveillance radars instead of Type 965, Dutch M22 fire control systems instead of MRS.3 and Mulloka sonar instead of Type 184. Although, it also says that the 2 ships built for the RNZN had Graezby 750 sonar instead of Type 184.

And it maybe that they preferred ships that could carry helicopters too.

 

[uk 75]

Does anyone know why New Zealand bought an Ikara Leander rather than a gun or Exocet version?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Does anyone know why New Zealand bought an Ikara Leander rather than a gun or Exocet version?

I haven't the foggiest.

I think a gun armed Leander would have fitted their requirements better and due to standardisation with the other 3 was better from a logistical point of view.

My guess is that Bacchante and Dido were the two ships that were available. However, I think that doesn't stand to reason.

Mr Knott wanted to concentrate the smaller Destroyer & Frigate force on ASW in the GUIK Gap, which the Ikara Leanders were better suited to than the Exocet and "Gun" ships on account of being armed with Ikara. If I remember correctly (because I haven't checked) no Ikara Leanders were sent to the Falklands precisely because they were needed to cover the GIUK Gap. Therefore, it made sense to keep all 8 Ikara Leanders for at least the short term.

And there were four other "Gun" Leanders in the RN in 1981. I can think of no just impediment to one of them being transferred to the RNZN in place of Dido if the NZ Government really wanted one.

 

[Hood]

The Wikipedia page for HMS Dido actually gives a fairly good round-up of why the RNZN brought her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dido_(F104)

Seems to have been a case that the ADAWS 5 was seen as a good training tool in modern(ish) electronics for some reason. Plus the other ships on offer (a real mix of Tribals, Lincolns and even a County!) were deemed to be knackered. It seems a second Ikara Leander was offered (Leander, Ajax or Naiad) but not taken up, despite Bacchante not being in the best of condition either.
They did look at keeping Ikara operational until the mid-90s but it was too expensive so was retired in 1989, thus New Zealand was a user for only 6 years.

It sounds more like they wanted a modern gas turbine frigate, perhaps something more like the Type 21, but with nothing else on offer took what slim pickings Nott was offering.

 

[BlackBat242]

Exactly... here is the exact Wiki text:

As a result of the 1981 Defence Review, which had recommended the disposal of some older frigates, the ship was sold to the RNZN, along with sister ship HMS Bacchante. The already 18-year-old Southland was selected mainly to train RNZN personnel on computerised command and control systems, even though the ADWAS 5 system was dated with only 4 screens and talley and a quarter of the processing capacity and screens of the later Leander and T21, C4 CAAIS. It is seen as a dubious purchase, in retrospect, and by some at the time, as an ageing, if recently refitted, 'over specialised anti submarine frigate' without any real surface armament or surveillance radar. The acquisition of the second hand frigate was also in direct conflict with the 1978 NZ Defence Review that decided that future frigates would be gas turbine powered and steam abandoned as a prime mover for RNZ combat ships.

Diesel powered long range frigates were also, offered in 1981, HMS Lynx and HMS Lincoln were rejected on account of age and lack of helicopter capability, the partly gas turbine powered HMS Zulu and HMS Norfolk which at least started and could leave port immediately, without 6/8 hours to flash up the steam boilers were rejected on the basis 'that they were already almost in the scrapyard' (they were later sold to Indonesia and Chile) and excessive manning requirements, although all had 4.5 guns and 965AW radar and in the case of HMS Norfolk, full Link 10/11 USN compatible communications, high range and Exocet missiles. The option of purchasing a second Ikara Leander was available in the general offer after the UK 1981 Defence Review, with HMS Leander, HMS Ajax and in particular HMS Naiad, completed in March 1965, also offered. Given the extremely specialised nature of the Ikara Leanders and their incompatibility with the rather different Ikara systems in the Australian Type 12 frigates and Charles F. Adams-class guided missile destroyers, the acquisition of two Ikara Leanders would actually have given a real capability, able to test and practice, joint computer age anti-submarine operations. As UK experience and UK Treasury costing already indicated that the 13-year-old Bacchante was too old for cost-containable structural modernisation, a view also held by the former captain of HMNZS Waikato,

And since the first RAN River wasn't available until 2 1/2 years AFTER HMNZS Southland commissioned into the RNZN (and thus at least 3 years after the purchase decision & agreement was concluded), it should be utterly clear that HMAS Yarra was NOT available for purchase by New Zealand.

The second RAN River to decommission was HMAS Stuart in July 1991 - 8 years after New Zealand took delivery of Southland.

When New Zealand bought Dido/Southland, all SIX RAN Rivers were in active service. And all 6 had been modernized basically identically (save that Yarra did not get US Mk32 ASW torpedo tubes to replace the Limbo, nor as comprehensive habitability improvements).

 

[uk 75]

The original plan for the RN prior to the 1966 changes would have ended T12 production earlier in favour of new General Purpose and Anti Submarine Warfare ships.
T82 started life as an Air Defence Leander with CF299 instead of a helicopter deck. Early models of the T82 show its Leander origins.
Had a new design frigate been selected before 1966 the Leanders may well have been relegated to 2nd rate duties in the 1970s. By 1982 the RN might have had the following line up.

2 Carrier Groups (Queen Elizabeth and Eagle) with 8 County Class (Seaslug 2) and 8 T82 (CF299)
16 new GP and ASW frigates.
16 Leander and Rothesay T12

 

[Purpletrouble]

I think you need to modernise them unless you switch to somethig as you’ve 26 odd ships less than a decade old and you aren’t going to be building another 20+ to replace them.

So either they are built with more future proof weapons at the time (but what though?) or you build something else earlier, (although again with what different weapons) which would then also need modernising in the 70s timeframe anyway.

Given therefore you’ve got 2 dozen ships with basically 1950s armament because there wasnt alternative armament in the early-mid 60s, you have to modernise them in the 70s.

The Ikara ships seem sensible to do noting they did get ADAWS as you want all to get a modern CMS.

The Exocet ones are odd, loss of GP gun capability for something that could have been added as an extra? I think they had topweight issues so perhaps why you couldnt have gun and SSMs. Perhaps keep the gun and lose the VDS for the SSMs? I’m not sure how good the VDS was seen as tbh?

Broadbeamed it is a shame they were last as they had more potential and yet 1980 left half hanging. The Sea Wolf conversions arguably are the best use of the ships as it finally gave a Leander that could actually defend itself as the Falklands showed the air threat was Priority 1. It lost GP (gun) ability but

In terms of my preference:

I would like the RN to develop an auto cannon based CIWS, recognising Sea Wolf was not for small frigates or a secondary for anything. So commit to Phalanx/Goalkeeper much earlier and use that to replace Sea Cat. Arrives late 70s/early 80s.

Then you can fit Ikara, SSMs, Lynx and towed array &/or new hull sonar (did they replace the hull sonar?) as well as ADAWS/CAAIS to join it all up. I’d follow the Dutch with 76mm to retain some GP capability on non Ikara ships (assuming only 8 of those as real).

Radar is difficult, they’ll need something like 992 or 967/968 for local air and surface search and to cue the CIWS / 76mm. 1022 seems a lot of topweight. Perhaps on ships without the gun (966/968 could direct for it?) although iirc 965 was landed from Ikara due to topweight issues.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth Alternatehistory.com has a similar thread.

Leander class frigate refit sanity options

The Leander class frigate is probably one of the more well known RN ships from the cold war. In fact they were so successful they even inspired several license built versions for the Dutch, Chileans and Indian navy's alongside the typical commonwealth navies, with some still in service to this...

www.alternatehistory.com